D&D 5E Pew Pew magic......AHHHHHHH! Make martials all day swingers and casters limited per day slingers.

[Obryn]

I guess the real crucial question is whether a wizard will ever stoop to the level of a lowly muggle and take an action that doesn't involve casting a spell. Like using a crossbow. Oh the horror!

I don't know, will they?

Like I said upthread, "uses a crossbow" is hardly an iconic feature of wizards in literature.

 

[Mistwell]

I think if you want to add a limit on use of cantrips as follows, it would be fine, and wouldn't change their use overly much:

"You can cast cantrips a number of times equal to your [spellcasting ability score], until you are too mentally drained to cast a cantrip again without a short rest."

So most of the time, you can cast 16-18 cantrips until you need to rest an hour to be able to cast it anymore.

You can even add an optional grim and gritty version:

"You can cast cantrips a number of times equal to your [spellcasting modifier], until you are too mentally drained to cast a cantrip again without a short rest. You can cast more than that without a rest, but each cantrip you cast beyond your [spellcasting modifier] without a short rest, you must make a Constitution saving throw equal to your spellcasting DC for that spell, or else take 1 point of temporary Constitution damage."

That, or you can add a misfire chance to it after a certain point, or a fizzle chance after a certain point.

Edit: Moving to this thread instead.

 

[Dausuul]

I guess the real crucial question is whether a wizard will ever stoop to the level of a lowly muggle and take an action that doesn't involve casting a spell. Like using a crossbow. Oh the horror!

Or, you know, walking places, and talking to people, and searching a room, and pitching a tent, and all the many, many things that any given wizard doesn't know a cantrip to take care of. You only get three of them (four if you're an illusionist). That doesn't enable you to run your whole life with magic. It just gives you a handful of small abilities that don't cost you anything to use.

Can we stop the hyperbole, please? At-will or fatigue-based magic is common in D&D's fictional antecedents--much more common, in fact, than Vancian, which exists in the writings of Jack Vance and hardly anywhere else. It doesn't break the game. It doesn't destroy the plausibility of the game world. And it certainly does not remove the need for wizards to husband their arcane resources! I am not opposed to the idea of playing a wizard who has to fall back on mundane tools much of the time, but I can also appreciate that many (and indeed most) players like their wizards to have some magical tricks they can always use.

I'm going to go start a new thread to discuss what a "no cantrips" optional module might look like. That seems like a more constructive use of time than continuing this one, which started off badly and is getting worse by the hour.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat - You forgot a couple!

- Rust monsters would only destroy non-metallic weapons and equipment.
- 'Blind' status would only apply to unsighted creatures.

An excellent list I sadly can't XP!

Also, paladins must have a requirement to bite the heads off babies in a religious ceremony in front of the townsfolk. While they aren't judging, they do approve.

How could I forget! And lol * 17 (especially the .

If I were redoing the 4e Paladin (and hopefully 5e follows the example when it goes live), I would definitely make the the Paladin Oaths, the Oath of the Throat Tear and Oath of the Baby Head Bite. Paladin Code: Truth, missing tracheas, and the wee chomped head way.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I find it ironic the same people claiming "at-will magic cheapens magic" have no problem with their high level Magic Users becoming invincible reality-shaping Gods that can grant themselves multiple Wishes a day.

And it's Ray of Frost that's cheapening magic?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find it ironic the same people claiming "at-will magic cheapens magic" have no problem with their high level Magic Users becoming invincible reality-shaping Gods that can grant themselves multiple Wishes a day.

That sounds really problematic. And really not like any version of D&D I'm aware of.

 

[Ichneumon]

The L&L from 4 November last year (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20131104) has the following tidbit.

In addition, the warlock is notable for its ability to channel spells again and again. A warlock masters the secrets of spells to use them repeatedly, though compared to a wizard, a warlock has a much smaller spell list.

If this holds, it's looking like the warlock's magic will be at-will all the way down. Does this doom the warlock to being a shallow, cheesy "pew-pewer" without the tactical sweetness that only limited spell usage can bring? Or can both the wizard and warlock deliver a rich playing experience in their own ways? I think the latter's more likely, somehow.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If this holds, it's looking like the warlock's magic will be at-will all the way down. Does this doom the warlock to being a shallow, cheesy "[/FONT][/COLOR]pew-pewer" without the tactical sweetness that only limited spell usage can bring? Or can both the wizard and warlock deliver a rich playing experience in their own ways? I think the latter's more likely, somehow.

A good question. However, a warlock is a very different proposition with much more limited capabilities, and one that has a pretty clear in-world drawback in exchange for that power.

 

[TwoSix]

That sounds really problematic. And really not like any version of D&D I'm aware of.

You should check out the Fighters vs Spellcasters thread then.

 

[Wulfgar76]

That sounds really problematic. And really not like any version of D&D I'm aware of.

Yes, cause the 'Quadratic Caster' is something I invented just now.